This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Re: 1-Year-Old Boy Shot In The Head In New York City Dies

Originally Posted by tessaesque

Multiple shots fired and no report that the parents sustained any injury or that the child received any other injury during the shooting. Doesn't sound to me like the child/parents were the intended target. What was going on in that area at the time? The article is extremely vague on details.

Re: 1-Year-Old Boy Shot In The Head In New York City Dies

Originally Posted by Lutherf

Hard to imagine how this could possibly happen in a city with some of the most stringent gun control laws in the country. I figure that if this batch of laws hasn't worked it's high time for NY to make some more laws. Maybe they could have a "SUPER SAFE Act".

Look man, you can't play the "X happened but there was a law against it so therefore that law is useless" just because something is illegal or has legal control built against and it ends up happening, it doesn't mean that the law or the control is entirely worthless.

Point in case, states that have extremely lose gun laws, the point of which being in part to allow people to defend themselves and their property, suffer murders as well. So if you're going to blast states with strict gun control laws whenever they have a murder, because the gun laws didn't prevent that murder, why would you not also blast those states with lose gun control laws whenever they have a murder as well?

Both types of states have taken measures to attempt to limit murder, something everyone wants, and obviously neither is 100% effective and it would be unreasonable to expect anything to be 100% effective, yet your attention is only drawn to those times when the law doesn't work in strict gun control laws however there's nothing but silence for when the law allowing lose firearm controls fails as well to prevent a murder.

Re: 1-Year-Old Boy Shot In The Head In New York City Dies

Originally Posted by TiredOfLife

Guns are for killing things, their only purpose, in this case it was a baby. And so it goes.

This has been refuted time and time again. The most popular firearms in the county are 22 rifles that are illegal to use for hunting all but small game because they lack the power to effectly kill larger animals. By far the highest number of rounds of any caliber sold are 22lr, and since you can't "kill" a paper target your assertion is wrong. Your ignorance of firearms disqualifies you from reasonable discussion on the matter, your bias insures that you will never understand it well enough to comment on it, therefore any posts you make on the subject are nothing but intentional trolling which is against forum rules. Reported.

Re: 1-Year-Old Boy Shot In The Head In New York City Dies

Originally Posted by Wiseone

Look man, you can't play the "X happened but there was a law against it so therefore that law is useless" just because something is illegal or has legal control built against and it ends up happening, it doesn't mean that the law or the control is entirely worthless.

Point in case, states that have extremely lose gun laws, the point of which being in part to allow people to defend themselves and their property, suffer murders as well. So if you're going to blast states with strict gun control laws whenever they have a murder, because the gun laws didn't prevent that murder, why would you not also blast those states with lose gun control laws whenever they have a murder as well?

Both types of states have taken measures to attempt to limit murder, something everyone wants, and obviously neither is 100% effective and it would be unreasonable to expect anything to be 100% effective, yet your attention is only drawn to those times when the law doesn't work in strict gun control laws however there's nothing but silence for when the law allowing lose firearm controls fails as well to prevent a murder.

The difference is that one approach makes a valuable, legitimate, intelligent attempt to limit senseless killing by helping the innocent to defend themselves in additional ways. One approach essentially sticks their fingers in their ears, closes their eyes, and shouts "LA LA LA LA LA LA LA".

Re: 1-Year-Old Boy Shot In The Head In New York City Dies

Originally Posted by Gipper

The difference is that one approach makes a valuable, legitimate, intelligent attempt to limit senseless killing by helping the innocent to defend themselves in additional ways. One approach essentially sticks their fingers in their ears, closes their eyes, and shouts "LA LA LA LA LA LA LA".

Realism has an amazing, long-standing track record over idealism.

Which approach is which? You didn't really make it clear and I don't want to asssume.